Is it time to join Nato

speed and EU are mutually exclusive...

edit: the precursor to the RRF, which is the EU Battlegroup (1500 troops, which Ireland has been a member of many times) has never been utilised anywhere due to how slow the political process to deploy them has been each time they were looked at.

There is massive inter-dependance between the Europe and the US. Politically, economically, culturally, socially. Article 5 guarantee mutual defence by Treaty. On a practical level, even all-through Trump's last tenure saw the expansion of US troop presence in Eastern accession states, and a large increase in air and naval deterrence on the Eastern periphery after 2014. There was zero let-up in the US' commitment to European security even with that fruitcake calling the shots.

Contrast that with precisely zero legal guarantees from the EU to Ireland for military aid. None. Zilch. Nada. It doesn't exist, and there's nothing to compell a Le Pen, Orban or any other flake to provide it if we got into trouble. And characters like them are more friend to Moscow than they are to Dublin, so why would they bother their backsides if there was no legal commitment?

Once again, we made it that way. Because during the Lisbon debates, the sky is falling merchants came out of the woodwork with scare stories of a big bad European Army and little Paidraigeen being sent off to war.

There is a large crossover between those sorts, and those now falling-back on a non-existant military commitment from the EU to Ireland. It's simply not there - it's not a legal reality and there's no point in trying to make it up.

The submarine deal damage the greater EU market? The only people that care about the submarine 'debacle' is Macron and his ego and the French contractors. Why on earth would it damage our country? Australia saw a better deal on the table that served their defence needs more and they went for it. Macron can lick his wounds on that one because he was offering up inferior diesel technology 100 perecnt made in France. In contrast the US and UK were willing to share nuclear technology with Canberra with significant components constructed and maintained onshore in Aus. No brainer. Better yet, it seriously p*ssed off Beijing - that's how you know it's good and Aus got the call right.

NATO and the US security guarantee has kept Europe unmolested from threats for 80 years, and it will for 80 years more. All the woolly student union rhetoric in the world wont change that.

NATO is the only credible game in town for European defence. A European security architecture without the US means significantly less deterrance with significantly more costs imposed on Europeans via higher defence spending. Only a prize-idiot or reflexive anti-American wants it (and maybe Macron with his de Gaulle larping).

Let me know when the EU agrees to a centralised command, what country the Supreme Commander comes from, what countries will give-up political control of their armed forces, what countries put up the rank and file, what capital pays for it, and which countries defence industries get the bullet when the grim reaper of centralised procurement comes knocking for job cuts. Ain't happening. Pipe dream.

You're effectively making the argument that Ukraine should have been in NATO from the early 90s. A demand that would have made the negotiation of the Budapest Memorandum impossible.

The mistake of Budapest was taking Russia at their word. And the answer to autocrat, fascist and irredentist powers in Europe is more USA in European deterrence affairs, not less.

Nordics, Eastern Europe, lately Germany and pretty much everyone but Macron are all-in on more NATO since February 2022. That you can't see the profound gear shift and are calling for a fantasy weaker security architecture that Moscow would orgasm over is quite bizzare.

What has this Trump NFT business and everything else got to do with the price of turnips?

I'm actually pretty unmoved by Australia selecting the UK/US sub contract, it was the obvious choice. France wasn't sharing it's top tech with Aus and the contract was to have 100 percent of the subs constructed in France with a reliance on French maintanence to boot. That was big-boy business and Macron lost out.

NATO is still the only game in town, and you're going to get more of it. Pretty much everyone sees this after Feb 2022. Where's the clamour from Sweden and Finland for this mythical European strategic military autonomy that only exists in the press office of the Élysée? Non existant, because they want overwhelming deterrance and a proper security gauruntee. That doesn't come from Franco-centric press releases and Gaullist wishful thinking.

You want the Europe to throw its lot-in with a weaker French-led security architecture with Le Pen at the helm? Because she's a lock to be the next President. Super idea. She's more bought by Moscow than the orange disaster ever was. Trump is yesterday's man and NATO more than survived his term.

European security architecture without the US means Turkey p*ss off as well, and then we don't have security for Europe. Black Sea becomes a Russian lake, Turkey turns pro-Russia and the dominos start to fall.

You think security is some abstract thing and some sort of student union debating topic. It isn't.

I'll repeat, nobody with a brain in their skull wants the US gone from Europe. Not the Nordics, not Eastern Europe, not the Turks, not Germany, not Iberia, not the UK, not Italy. They don't want them gone because any putative replacement means a free-hand to Russia and China and amounts to Europe shooting itself in the balls for no particular reason.

The only people entertaining it are rolling tobacco smoking tankies that are trying to replay the Cold-War that Moscow lost (and maybe Macron when he's lying awake at night).

I think the bigger thing to destabilise Turkish/US relations would be if they made a major move on the Kurds while the US are still in Syria.

Or tried to purchase more Russian military kit (although, they'd be waiting a looong time for it to be delivered)